What's the Beef with Beef Regulations?

A recent lawsuit filed against fast-food chain Taco Bell last month—claiming that the beef used in its signature recipe did not qualify to be called beef—has once again caused Americans across the nation to rethink their eating habits. The case against Taco Bell has been debunked for the time being, after its President and Chief Concept Officer Greg Creed responded to the accusation saying, “The lawsuit is bogus and filled with completely inaccurate facts. Our beef is 100 percent USDA inspected, just like the quality beef you would buy in a supermarket and prepare in your home.” While you Chalupa lovers out there can rest assured that you have been eating real beef, this lawsuit has shed light on an entirely new food group: Taco Meat Filling.

The lawsuit against Taco Bell claimed that what the company was calling ground beef in advertisements was actually “Taco Meat Filling.” Unlike beef and other single-ingredient meat products that require at least 70 percent of the labeled meat, Taco Meat Filling must contain only 40 percent fresh meat. Taco Bell’s beef, on the contrary, is said to contain 88 percent beef, which clearly passes the USDA standard for the product. While the company’s record is not totally unscathed as of late, with two salmonella outbreaks in 2010 and an E. Coli outbreak in 2006, it seems to be off the hook for this latest incident.

Soylent Green

---

Released in 1973, this science fiction classic takes place in the year 2022. With over-population and world hunger spreading throughout civilization, the Soylent Corporation develops a miracle food product—Soylent Green. Unfortunately, the advertised “high-energy plankton” turns out to be people.

Taco Meat Filling
is people!!!

Taco Bell’s innocence aside, it still does not help me understand how products being sold as “Taco Meat Filling” only need to contain 40 percent fresh meat. It also forces me to question what other standards make up most of the food we eat on a daily basis. Can anyone say Soylent Green? (see left).

I realize that it’s impossible to completely change the food industry as it now stands, and that the Monsantos of the world will have a say in our food products for a long time, but it makes sense to me that we should have a greater say in what’s in our food. Our government, whether you agree or disagree, is in place to be the voice of the people and should have the right to enforce our food laws and keep us safe. The recent passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is a step in the right direction, which will increase the frequency of federal inspections to domestic and foreign food facilities. In it, the FDA states, “High risk domestic facilities must receive initial inspection within the next five years and no less than every three years after that.” 

What really gets me is that there has been backlash from food producers, politicians and other pundits to the legislation that say the bill will give government too much power over what we eat. If too much power means requiring “high-risk” facilities to be inspected at least once every three years, I’d hate to see what the results of fewer restrictions would be.

While I’m simplifying this debate with only one issue included in the FSMA, I’m using it to make a point about food as we know it now, and what it may become if we don’t accept government restrictions on food production. While my Soylent Green references above are meant in jest, think about what Taco Meat Filling would be made of if we didn’t have “Big Brother” watching what the food industry is up to. –Dennis Marrero

Dennis Marrero is the managing editor of foodspring.com
and is the author of foodspring’s food for change blog.

0 comments